The environment and climate change are issues that are gaining increasing attention and urgency in the climate of today’s world. While there has been rising historical works on the human impact on the environment since the 1960s and 1970s, less has been done with regards to focus on environmental and non-human historical actors, including their impact on the environment and subsequently on humanity. At least from my experience so far, this is something I have not really looked at, which perhaps explains why I overall found this week’s readings particularly interesting, especially when they involved volcanos!
I found Bernhard, Jan Koura and James Koranyi’s draft chapter Icelandic Sulphur: From Paris to Laki and Back particularly fascinating and enjoyable. I think this chapter demonstrates the importance and benefit of adding environmental levels and factors into historical analysis, and what dimensions and transnational effects non-human aspects can contribute.
This is especially through the huge extent of the eruption’s impact, including leading to over 140,000 deaths, which by comparison, is over three times as many deaths that occurred during the American Revolutionary Wars around the same time. Yet, significantly scholarly attention greatly focuses on the latter. Laki has also experienced very limited attention compared to other volcanic eruptions, especially those which had more a ‘eventful’ or ‘explosive’ nature. Despite this, Laki had profound consequences in a variety of different ways across the globe. I think this chapter is a significant and important contribution and example of non-human agency and environmental impact that is outside of the mainstream examples such as Krakatoa, which also encourages similar research into other perhaps overlooked yet significant non-human actors.
Finally, in response to some of the initial questions asked in the draft chapter, based on the readings and my understanding at this stage, I would view volcanos as a transnational catalyst, and sulphur as a transnational actor due from many of the points and effects discussed throughout the chapter. I overall think that it opens up more possibilities for similar enquires into non-human actors, including in a transnational context, the findings and dimensions of which I am excited to learn!
Hi Jemma,
I really enjoyed this blog post and I found myself thinking the same things doing the readings. The perspectives presented on non-human actors etc. have helped me in my short and long essay readings, and your post has even helped visualise and expand on some of my thoughts, so thank you! Even in your response to the question, I was substituting ‘volcanoes’ for Chernobyl and ‘sulphur’ for radiation. This isn’t a way I was considering to spend too much time on in my essay because of its focus on social movements, but perhaps I should take that step back and consider the environmental impacts first as a solid contextualisation. Lots to think about!!
Plus, I totally agree about the American Revolution thing – isn’t it crazy that historians, although subconsciously, consider human factors more significant than environmental, when the latter can be much more devastating? It really blows your mind and makes you realise how much we don’t even consider from the past!